Congratulations to my fellow Democrats

[Kodiak]

So, may as well not invest in any retirement portfolios, or winter clothing, or make any plans that the sun will rise again tomorrow.

No, I don't go that far. I'd be happy if the pro-Obamacare people simply acknowleged the possibility and can appreciate the gravity of the situation. To put it simply, "true believers" scare me.

 

[Shalamar]

Indeed. However there's even more "off-the-books" things that are going to raise my rates.

Oh. More than likely. I Do NOT like the bill. It does too little, and seems to cost too much. On that, time will tell. As I said, its only slightly better than previous.

I actually like the idea of preventing coverage for pre-existing conditions. I don't like the implementation. That said, I'm covered by a corporate policy. It covers pre-existing conditions. Mostly because it's an isolated insurance risk pool (I'm sure there's a fancier name for that). The company as a whole pays out ~7% more than what our total medical costs were.

That's part of the problem. The best Health care is tied to employment. If you are a part time worker, or have a job with a small company, you will likely not be able to get the best health care. If any at all. Add to the fact that if you lose you job, you need to find immediate coverage, or, well, lose it. I do wonder that now that everyone MUST have insurance (which the insurance companies must love), they'll just increase rates for those with re-existing coverage, since they know they have to cover the poor sap. Rates overall will likely just go up, since people can no longer to dropped.

This is mainly the reason why I favour a full implementation of a single payer plan. Everyone is automatically covered, and it isn't tied to your employment. This would be better for smaller companies, probably neutral for larger ones (Some companies use the insurance coverage as an incentive to work there).

 

[drkitten]

Oh. More than likely. I Do NOT like the bill. It does too little, and seems to cost too much. On that, time will tell. As I said, its only slightly better than previous.

I don't think that anyone likes this bill, but that's the nature of politics. If you allow the best to be the enemy of the merely good, then you'll get neither.

I agree that single-payer is ultimately the way to go. I also think that this bill has moved us substantially in that direction and I feel more confident that I will see a US single-payer system in my lifetime than I did a year ago.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I'd really like to hear their answer, and I find it telling that only liberals are willing to even try to address the question, since it's so fundamental to the debate.

It seems to me that the reason no GOBaggers will answer the question is because the answer is so awful as to be embarrassing.

I have some real concerns about this bill, as well as the manner in which it came about. I do not oppose the entirety of it, but do not think passing it with no restraints on cost (among other things) is a sound way to go about it.

I decided early on, however, that I would not spend much time on these threads to put out positions or try to discuss the bill at all when the vast majority (it seems) of comments assume anyone raising concerns is a racist, hates the poor, is ready to cull the weak, has no reasons for their position (outside of the aforementioned hate and racism, of course), and all topped by references to tea-baggers and GOBaggers.

I don't think this bill will do what its authors claim. I think there are a lot of costs it does nothing to contain, and I think a smaller, targeted bill would have been a better way to go. I hope it works out, but I have some serious doubts. But as far as justifying my position to a crowd throwing jeers and taunts?

The people demanding a response, for the most part, are doing just fine knocking down imaginary arguments from non-existent opponents; I see no need for anyone to actually respond. I apologize to the few who legitimately may want to talk about the issue, but the wheat-to-chaff ratio is a bit extreme at the moment.

 

[Kodiak]

I have some real concerns about this bill, as well as the manner in which it came about. I do not oppose the entirety of it, but do not think passing it with no restraints on cost (among other things) is a sound way to go about it.

I decided early on, however, that I would not spend much time on these threads to put out positions or try to discuss the bill at all when the vast majority (it seems) of comments assume anyone raising concerns is a racist, hates the poor, is ready to cull the weak, has no reasons for their position (outside of the aforementioned hate and racism, of course), and all topped by references to tea-baggers and GOBaggers.

I don't think this bill will do what its authors claim. I think there are a lot of costs it does nothing to contain, and I think a smaller, targeted bill would have been a better way to go. I hope it works out, but I have some serious doubts. But as far as justifying my position to a crowd throwing jeers and taunts?

The people demanding a response, for the most part, are doing just fine knocking down imaginary arguments from non-existent opponents; I see no need for anyone to actually respond. I apologize to the few who legitimately may want to talk about the issue, but the wheat-to-chaff ratio is a bit extreme at the moment.

I don't know if you're taking the high road, the middle road, or the low road, but its the road I should've taken...

 

[Newtons Bit]

Oh. More than likely. I Do NOT like the bill. It does too little, and seems to cost too much. On that, time will tell. As I said, its only slightly better than previous.

That's part of the problem. The best Health care is tied to employment. If you are a part time worker, or have a job with a small company, you will likely not be able to get the best health care. If any at all. Add to the fact that if you lose you job, you need to find immediate coverage, or, well, lose it. I do wonder that now that everyone MUST have insurance (which the insurance companies must love), they'll just increase rates for those with re-existing coverage, since they know they have to cover the poor sap. Rates overall will likely just go up, since people can no longer to dropped.

I agree with this. There are some protections in place, like COBRA, but it's not ideal. In the end, the best health insurance you can get is part of a medium to large sized company that has a large risk pool.

This is mainly the reason why I favour a full implementation of a single payer plan. Everyone is automatically covered, and it isn't tied to your employment. This would be better for smaller companies, probably neutral for larger ones (Some companies use the insurance coverage as an incentive to work there).

I don't like the idea of a single payer system (i.e. the federal government) simply because there is no choice or competition. If my company gets fed up with the deal we're getting with our current provider, we can switch. They keep a pretty good finger on the situation and have threatened our provider with doing so before. I don't want a situation where I don't have a choice of changing providers (or at least lobbying my boss to change providers) when I think one isn't meeting my needs.

As much as I would hate the erosion of states rights, I would prefer it if the federal government banned state governments from regulating health insurance, forbid corporate policies and set the tone for a very competitive national market. Ideally it would work something like auto insurance: a decent number of large companies all competing for business. All government aid for health insurance would be through vouchers (a dreaded word) to get health insurance from one of these companies. People would be allowed to choose what they wanted their plan to cover, such as chiropractory, acupuncture or whatever voodoo some people want, but not force me to have it as well.

There's a bunch of other ideas I have to try and get costs down, but that's the meat of it. It's mostly geared at getting costs "on-the-books" as it were. If my hospital visit costs X dollars, I want it to be because that's what it cost for me. Not me plus all the people that are short-shrifting the system that I have to subsidize with my payment. And I especially don't like hospital bills that says the total cost was Y, my co-payment is Z but my insurance company has negotiated a deal for just their part of the payment.

Subsidizing people who can't afford to buy health insurance on their own through tax-dollars does not bother me. I think that's what taxes are for. But the system we have now that forces me to subsidize people who can't afford to pay for emergency care (and can't afford normal care) and all government plans through my payment to the provider itself drives me batty.

 

[WildCat]

It's been all night. Will someone attempt to answer my question?

What should happen to poor people who cannot afford to buy insurance when they get sick? Who should pay? All of us? Or none of us?

It's not the poor that will be the problem, they're already covered under Medicaid.

It's the person just making ends meet on his $35,000 salary that is the problem. Under this bill he's expected to fork over $350 or so every month to buy insurance. Of course, he probably can't afford that so he'll just continue going without. Because there's nothing in this bill to make it affordable for him. At least he won't be forced to pay a fine either, because the $350 is more than 8% of his income.

What, you don't see how this bill fixed the problem? Neither do I.

 

[Thunder]

millions of more Americans will buy health insurance, because of this bill.

that means millions more healthier Americans.

only a GOPer would see this as a bad thing.

 

[WildCat]

Your allegations are all over the place.

ETA: Recall that you alleged that the CBO report that estimates the bill will result in something like a $138 billion deficit reduction over 10 years is dependent on the CBO making an assumption that Medicare spending will be reduced by $500 billion. I pointed out that that's not true. The CBO didn't start out with an assumption of a $500 billion reduction; rather that was their calculated estimate of the effect of this bill on a category of spending (that was mostly Medicare). You asked if I could provide details of how they did this, and I pointed out, as the report does, that this was done in Table 3 of the report--an 11 page document that ends with the figures of around -$500 billion for the bill as it is now, and the bill with the reconciliation package.

A table isn't a derivation, a table shows the result. How was the number derived?

Do you think the CBO conspired to skew the numbers? Do the Democrats control CBO?

Or do you think the CBO's job is to guess which parts of the bill opponents of it are likely to undo in future Congresses and give an estimate of the fiscal results of those potential future legislative actions?

The CBO works under the rules and assumptions Congress gives them.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html?ref=opinion

Note that the author is a former director of the CBO.

 

[WildCat]

I guess it depends on what you mean by afford, eh? 35K/yr for a single person isn't chump change.

Maybe not in Portland. It certainly is in New York City, Los Angeles, or Chicago.

You're basically mandating everyone take on the cost of a new car payment.

 

[WildCat]

I'm sure there's a magic wand or mind-control device in the inevitably lackluster response to this question... somewhere...

ETA: Note to some here - the sun rose this morning. Life goes on.

Has no one here read the NYT op-ed I linked to? Or am I on ignore?

 

[WildCat]

Subsidizing people who can't afford to buy health insurance on their own through tax-dollars does not bother me. I think that's what taxes are for. But the system we have now that forces me to subsidize people who can't afford to pay for emergency care (and can't afford normal care) and all government plans through my payment to the provider itself drives me batty.

Actually you're being subsidized, not the other way around. You don't pay income taxes on your benefits, and your employer also gets tax breaks.

Everyone who buys individual policies is subsidizing you.

 

[funk de fino]

Note that the author is a former director of the CBO.

And a John McCain sidekick. Jeb Bush is on the board of his AAF, dont let the truthers see that.

 

[funk de fino]

Actually you're being subsidized, not the other way around. You don't pay income taxes on your benefits, and your employer also gets tax breaks.

Everyone who buys individual policies is subsidizing you.

Is this how it works in the US?

 

[Unabogie]

It's not the poor that will be the problem, they're already covered under Medicaid.

It's the person just making ends meet on his $35,000 salary that is the problem. Under this bill he's expected to fork over $350 or so every month to buy insurance. Of course, he probably can't afford that so he'll just continue going without. Because there's nothing in this bill to make it affordable for him. At least he won't be forced to pay a fine either, because the $350 is more than 8% of his income.

What, you don't see how this bill fixed the problem? Neither do I.

Man, no one wants to answer this question, and it's just fundamental to the issue of health care coverage.

There are people who cannot afford coverage. Conservatives want to abolish Medicaid, Medicare, and the new subsidies for private care.

So the question to them is "what should happen ON A PHILOSOPHICAL LEVEL to people who cannot afford to buy coverage? Should they get help from everyone else, or is that "redistributionist" and they should be on their own?"

What's your answer to this narrow question?

 

[dudalb]

I have a basic problem with the Feds mandating something, then not paying for it.

 

[drkitten]

Man, no one wants to answer this question, and it's just fundamental to the issue of health care coverage.

There are people who cannot afford coverage. Conservatives want to abolish Medicaid, Medicare, and the new subsidies for private care.

So the question to them is "what should happen ON A PHILOSOPHICAL LEVEL to people who cannot afford to buy coverage? Should they get help from everyone else, or is that "redistributionist" and they should be on their own?"

What's your answer to this narrow question?

Their health care should be paid for out of the public purse. Just as buildings that are tax exempt should still be eligible for fire protection.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Actually you're being subsidized, not the other way around. You don't pay income taxes on your benefits, and your employer also gets tax breaks.

Everyone who buys individual policies is subsidizing you.

How does the tax-benefit of having a company insurance plan affect what I pay for hospital visits? Did you even read what I wrote?

 

[drkitten]

I have a basic problem with the Feds mandating something, then not paying for it.

Well, as the conservatives will gleefully point out, the government doesn't "pay" for anything; it's simply a pathway for tax money that you pay for yourself.

The advantage of this approach seems to be that if you can negotiate a better deal for yourself than what the Fed would charge in taxes, that's fine.

And it's not like there's not a huge list of things that are already mandated-but-not-paid-for. I have to keep my trash in a metal can with a tightly fitting lid, which I have to bring out to the curb every Wednesday evening after 9pm and back again before 8am. They're not paying me to be up at 8am on Thursday, but I have to do it anyway.

What's the difference?

 

[Steve]

It's not the poor that will be the problem, they're already covered under Medicaid.

It's the person just making ends meet on his $35,000 salary that is the problem. Under this bill he's expected to fork over $350 or so every month to buy insurance. Of course, he probably can't afford that so he'll just continue going without. Because there's nothing in this bill to make it affordable for him. At least he won't be forced to pay a fine either, because the $350 is more than 8% of his income.

What, you don't see how this bill fixed the problem? Neither do I.

Wow! This is the first time I have seen any hard numbers related to this bill. If this is true - $350/month on a $35,000 salary - then you Americans still have a lot to learn about funding a health care system. My salary is somewhat more than double the $35,000 and my total cost for medical and dental plans (public MSP and employer-provided extended benefits combined) is just over $170.00 per month for my family of 3. Still, I guess you have to start somewhere.......